Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Wednesday 06 October 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-09-21 19:02 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > is if it doesn't show up with -Wall and that it doesn't trip > up -Wall -Werror. > >>> > >>> Yes, sorry for not pointing it out explicit

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-21 19:02 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: is if it doesn't show up with -Wall and that it doesn't trip up -Wall -Werror. >>> >>> Yes, sorry for not pointing it out explicitly. This is a clean >>> and clear behaviour, which we should

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Nope, read again. I think I had all the negations lined up > correctly. > > Rephrase: But now you are taking the position that the only way to > have the warning visible is if it shows up with -Wall and trips up > -Wall -Werror. Yes, that was I me

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-21 14:35 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Den 2010-09-21 12:46 skrev Stefano Lattarini: >>> Now, many projects might not care at all to support this building >>> environment, while still wanting to use `-Wall' to catch common >>> pitfalls; i

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-09-21 12:46 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > Now, many projects might not care at all to support this building > > environment, while still wanting to use `-Wall' to catch common > > pitfalls; in this scenario, a warning triggered by `-Wall' a

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-21 12:46 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > Hi Peter. > > On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Den 2010-09-17 11:58 skrev Stefano Lattarini: >>> Or what about doing somethins similar to what gcc does, and add a >>> new `-Wextra' category whose warnings are *not* enabled by >>> `

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Hi Peter. On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-09-17 11:58 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > Or what about doing somethins similar to what gcc does, and add a > > new `-Wextra' category whose warnings are *not* enabled by > > `-Wall', but which, when enabled, still causes `automa

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-17 11:58 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > On Friday 17 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Den 2010-09-16 20:03 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: + + if (! $seen_ar) + { +msg ('portability', $where, + "`$onelib': linking libraries requires " + .

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Hi Peter, Hi Ralf, just a quick thought... On Friday 17 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Ralf, > > Den 2010-09-16 20:03 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > >> + > >> + if (! $seen_ar) > >> + { > >> +msg ('portability', $where, > >> + "`$onelib': linking libraries requires " > >> +

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Hi Ralf, Den 2010-09-16 20:03 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > Hi Peter, > > I've looked over the non-testsuite part of this now. Comments below. > I'll try to get the rest done this weekend. Ok, great, and thanks! > * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:05AM CEST: >> --- a/automake.in >>

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:16:53AM CEST: > BTW, I see that the comments to the AC_TRY_EVAL definition in autoconf > boldly warn againt its use: > > # The AC_TRY_EVAL and AC_TRY_COMMAND macros are dangerous and > # undocumented, and should not be used. > # They may b

branches, and, well, more branches (was: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.)

* Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:18:53AM CEST: > Den 2010-09-15 23:56 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > > Peter, you shouldn't have to worry about any merging issues. That's > > what working on a branch is for, and that's what the msvc branch is for. > > > > Irrespective of which branch gets

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:00:54PM CEST: > On 09/16/2010 11:56 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >More generally, it either also requires that we bump Automake's version > >requirement on Autoconf, or we make the "autom4te preselections" test in > >Autoconf less strict, so that it won

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Hi Peter, I've looked over the non-testsuite part of this now. Comments below. I'll try to get the rest done this weekend. * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:05AM CEST: > --- a/automake.in > +++ b/automake.in > @@ -396,6 +396,9 @@ my $package_version_location; > # TRUE if we've s

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On 09/16/2010 11:56 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: [ adding autoconf-patches ] * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:05AM CEST: --- a/automake.in +++ b/automake.in @@ -5242,6 +5262,7 @@ sub scan_autoconf_traces ($) AM_GNU_GETTEXT_INTL_SUBDIR => 0, AM_

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

[ adding autoconf-patches ] * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50:05AM CEST: > --- a/automake.in > +++ b/automake.in > @@ -5242,6 +5262,7 @@ sub scan_autoconf_traces ($) > AM_GNU_GETTEXT_INTL_SUBDIR => 0, > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE => 0, > AM_MAINTAIN

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Hi Peter, thanks for not giving up ;-) On Thursday 16 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-09-15 12:44 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > >> > >> ">&foo" is the same as ">foo 2>&1", or what am I missing? > > > > No, "&>foo" is the same as ">foo 2>&1" on bash and zsh (at > > least), but is not p

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-15 23:56 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > For now, I didn't get any further than just some comments upon comments > (a review-review, if you like): > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:45:17AM CEST: >> On Tuesday 14 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Den 2010-09-14 20:1

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Wednesday 15 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > For now, I didn't get any further than just some comments upon > comments (a review-review, if you like): > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:45:17AM CEST: > > On Tuesday 14 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > > > Den 2

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

For now, I didn't get any further than just some comments upon comments (a review-review, if you like): * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:45:17AM CEST: > On Tuesday 14 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > > Den 2010-09-14 20:14 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > >> + [am_ar_try='$

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Wednesday 15 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-09-15 12:47 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > Honestly, I've never had to do such a "fake merge" myself in > > practice; but I can point you to the excellent explanation Ralf > > gave to me about the issue: > >

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-15 12:47 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > On Wednesday 15 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: >> BTW, I forgot to ask before, but can you please point out such a >> fake merge, so that I can see what I should aim for? > Honestly, I've never had to do such a "fake merge" myself in practice; > b

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Wednesday 15 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > BTW, I forgot to ask before, but can you please point out such a > fake merge, so that I can see what I should aim for? Honestly, I've never had to do such a "fake merge" myself in practice; but I can point you to the excellent explanation Ralf g

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Wednesday 15 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > Den 2010-09-15 01:45 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > +: ${AR=ar} > + > +AC_CACHE_CHECK([the archiver ($AR) interface], > [am_cv_ar_interface], + [am_cv_ar_interface=ar > + AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([[int some_varia

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

Den 2010-09-14 20:14 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > On Tuesday 14 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: >> However, I have only updated tests/ar.test to cope with the new >> reality. So, a lot of tests (100?) are likely to fall over due to >> the new portability warnings. The reason is that I don't know o

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

bing? >> + test $exit_status = 76 && exit 77 > I'm not sure I understand the semantic here; an exit status of 76 > means you have the expected `lib' program... and in this case you > skip the test because it requires `lib' itself? (BTW, sorry for >

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

On Tuesday 14 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > Den 2010-09-14 20:14 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > On Tuesday 14 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > [CUT] > >> or otherwise difficult to merge due to other changes. I'm also > >> not sure if this is the desired route. Please advis

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

ed out > somehow... patch in preparation ;-) Ok, can you please hold that until after this is through the pipe though, so that I don't have to fixup when merging? >> diff --git a/tests/ar.test b/tests/ar.test >> -$AUTOMAKE >> +$AUTOMAKE --add-missing > I'd rather create a du

Re: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

41461c3b6c5638a41d8d415ebcc40f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > 2001 From: Peter Rosin > Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:58:17 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the > 'ar-lib' script. > diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog > index 02f2fcd..b91

[PATCH] Add new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script.

rendered obsolete by LT_INIT. Is it also rendered obsolete by AC_PROG_LIBTOOL? Should I not care about libtool 1.5? Cheers, Peter >From e4810ab05c41461c3b6c5638a41d8d415ebcc40f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Rosin Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:58:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Add new 'A